Emotional involvement has always been a plus for me. This is particularly true in regard to portraits and figure studies. If I have a personal attachment, I work harder to make my subject look good. And I think the emotional energy pushes me to be more creative. This generally happens in the planning stage. I work hard to develop a good shoot idea. The execution is pretty much rote. If I go into a shoot with a plan, I can usually make it happen. But for me, emotion is motivation. Paul
> In a message dated 2/13/2005 11:43:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 13/2/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >One of the problems we photographers have is that of separating ourselves - > >our emotional attachment and involvement with a scene - from what makes a > >good photograph. We must train ourselves to see with unemotional eyes, > >thinking of composition and lighting, not so much about how we like the > >subject, or how the music makes us feel, etc. > > Personally I find the two aspects (emotional involvement vs what makes a > good photograph) are not mutually exclusive? FWIW, I find that the more > emotionally involved I am with the subject (be it a person, music, event, > whatever) the better my pictures IMO. But then again, I only make pics > for myself ;-) > > The closer I am to something, the more I get lost in it when filming/shooting. > > Just my .02 > > Kind regards > ========== > I agree. It also helps, when one is taking a shot of something one likes, to > have some basic understanding of composition and visual symbols. > > I feel if something made me feel a certain way, and I can capture it > effectively, it will make 1-# others feel the same way. > > Marnie aka Doe >
